H R Ali1, E Provenzano2, S-J Dawson3, F M Blows4, B Liu3, M Shah5, H M Earl6, C J Poole7, L Hiller7, J A Dunn7, S J Bowden8, C Twelves9, J M S Bartlett10, S M A Mahmoud11, E Rakha11, I O Ellis11, S Liu12, D Gao12, T O Nielsen12, P D P Pharoah5, C Caldas13. 1. Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute Departments of Pathology Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 2. Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 3. Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge. 4. Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge. 5. Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge. 6. Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge. 7. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry. 8. Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Cancer Studies, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham. 9. University of Leeds and Leeds Cancer Research UK Centre, St James' Institute of Oncology, Leeds, UK. 10. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Canada and Biomarker and Companion Diagnostics, Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, Edinburgh Department of Histopathology and School of Molecular Medical Sciences, The University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. 11. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia; Integrative Oncology Department, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver. 12. Genetic Pathology Evaluation Centre, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 13. Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge carlos.caldas@cruk.cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: T-cell infiltration in estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast tumours has been associated with longer survival. To investigate this association and the potential of tumour T-cell infiltration as a prognostic and predictive marker, we have conducted the largest study of T cells in breast cancer to date. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four studies totalling 12 439 patients were used for this work. Cytotoxic (CD8+) and regulatory (forkhead box protein 3, FOXP3+) T cells were quantified using immunohistochemistry (IHC). IHC for CD8 was conducted using available material from all four studies (8978 samples) and for FOXP3 from three studies (5239 samples)-multiple imputation was used to resolve missing data from the remaining patients. Cox regression was used to test for associations with breast cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: In ER-negative tumours [triple-negative breast cancer and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive)], presence of CD8+ T cells within the tumour was associated with a 28% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 38%] reduction in the hazard of breast cancer-specific mortality, and CD8+ T cells within the stroma with a 21% (95% CI 7% to 33%) reduction in hazard. In ER-positive HER2-positive tumours, CD8+ T cells within the tumour were associated with a 27% (95% CI 4% to 44%) reduction in hazard. In ER-negative disease, there was evidence for greater benefit from anthracyclines in the National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial in patients with CD8+ tumours [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.54; 95% CI 0.37-0.79] versus CD8-negative tumours (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.55-1.38). The difference in effect between these subgroups was significant when limited to cases with complete data (P heterogeneity = 0.04) and approached significance in imputed data (P heterogeneity = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of CD8+ T cells in breast cancer is associated with a significant reduction in the relative risk of death from disease in both the ER-negative [supplementary Figure S1, available at Annals of Oncology online] and the ER-positive HER2-positive subtypes. Tumour lymphocytic infiltration may improve risk stratification in breast cancer patients classified into these subtypes. NEAT ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00003577.
BACKGROUND: T-cell infiltration in estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast tumours has been associated with longer survival. To investigate this association and the potential of tumour T-cell infiltration as a prognostic and predictive marker, we have conducted the largest study of T cells in breast cancer to date. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four studies totalling 12 439 patients were used for this work. Cytotoxic (CD8+) and regulatory (forkhead box protein 3, FOXP3+) T cells were quantified using immunohistochemistry (IHC). IHC for CD8 was conducted using available material from all four studies (8978 samples) and for FOXP3 from three studies (5239 samples)-multiple imputation was used to resolve missing data from the remaining patients. Cox regression was used to test for associations with breast cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: In ER-negative tumours [triple-negative breast cancer and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive)], presence of CD8+ T cells within the tumour was associated with a 28% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 38%] reduction in the hazard of breast cancer-specific mortality, and CD8+ T cells within the stroma with a 21% (95% CI 7% to 33%) reduction in hazard. In ER-positive HER2-positive tumours, CD8+ T cells within the tumour were associated with a 27% (95% CI 4% to 44%) reduction in hazard. In ER-negative disease, there was evidence for greater benefit from anthracyclines in the National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial in patients with CD8+ tumours [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.54; 95% CI 0.37-0.79] versus CD8-negative tumours (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.55-1.38). The difference in effect between these subgroups was significant when limited to cases with complete data (P heterogeneity = 0.04) and approached significance in imputed data (P heterogeneity = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of CD8+ T cells in breast cancer is associated with a significant reduction in the relative risk of death from disease in both the ER-negative [supplementary Figure S1, available at Annals of Oncology online] and the ER-positive HER2-positive subtypes. Tumour lymphocytic infiltration may improve risk stratification in breast cancer patients classified into these subtypes. NEAT ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00003577.
Authors: Satish K Noonepalle; Franklin Gu; Eun-Joon Lee; Jeong-Hyeon Choi; Qimei Han; Jaejik Kim; Maria Ouzounova; Austin Y Shull; Lirong Pei; Pei-Yin Hsu; Ravindra Kolhe; Fang Shi; Jiseok Choi; Katie Chiou; Tim H M Huang; Hasan Korkaya; Libin Deng; Hong-Bo Xin; Shuang Huang; Muthusamy Thangaraju; Arun Sreekumar; Stefan Ambs; Shou-Ching Tang; David H Munn; Huidong Shi Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Christer Larsson; Anna Ehinger; Sofia Winslow; Karin Leandersson; Marie Klintman; Ludvig Dahl; Johan Vallon-Christersson; Jari Häkkinen; Cecilia Hegardt; Jonas Manjer; Lao Saal; Lisa Rydén; Martin Malmberg; Åke Borg; Niklas Loman Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-07-06
Authors: Shona Hendry; Roberto Salgado; Thomas Gevaert; Prudence A Russell; Tom John; Bibhusal Thapa; Michael Christie; Koen van de Vijver; M V Estrada; Paula I Gonzalez-Ericsson; Melinda Sanders; Benjamin Solomon; Cinzia Solinas; Gert G G M Van den Eynden; Yves Allory; Matthias Preusser; Johannes Hainfellner; Giancarlo Pruneri; Andrea Vingiani; Sandra Demaria; Fraser Symmans; Paolo Nuciforo; Laura Comerma; E A Thompson; Sunil Lakhani; Seong-Rim Kim; Stuart Schnitt; Cecile Colpaert; Christos Sotiriou; Stefan J Scherer; Michail Ignatiadis; Sunil Badve; Robert H Pierce; Giuseppe Viale; Nicolas Sirtaine; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Tomohagu Sugie; Susan Fineberg; Soonmyung Paik; Ashok Srinivasan; Andrea Richardson; Yihong Wang; Ewa Chmielik; Jane Brock; Douglas B Johnson; Justin Balko; Stephan Wienert; Veerle Bossuyt; Stefan Michiels; Nils Ternes; Nicole Burchardi; Stephen J Luen; Peter Savas; Frederick Klauschen; Peter H Watson; Brad H Nelson; Carmen Criscitiello; Sandra O'Toole; Denis Larsimont; Roland de Wind; Giuseppe Curigliano; Fabrice André; Magali Lacroix-Triki; Mark van de Vijver; Federico Rojo; Giuseppe Floris; Shahinaz Bedri; Joseph Sparano; David Rimm; Torsten Nielsen; Zuzana Kos; Stephen Hewitt; Baljit Singh; Gelareh Farshid; Sibylle Loibl; Kimberly H Allison; Nadine Tung; Sylvia Adams; Karen Willard-Gallo; Hugo M Horlings; Leena Gandhi; Andre Moreira; Fred Hirsch; Maria V Dieci; Maria Urbanowicz; Iva Brcic; Konstanty Korski; Fabien Gaire; Hartmut Koeppen; Amy Lo; Jennifer Giltnane; Marlon C Rebelatto; Keith E Steele; Jiping Zha; Kenneth Emancipator; Jonathan W Juco; Carsten Denkert; Jorge Reis-Filho; Sherene Loi; Stephen B Fox Journal: Adv Anat Pathol Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Colt A Egelston; Christian Avalos; Travis Y Tu; Anthony Rosario; Roger Wang; Shawn Solomon; Gayathri Srinivasan; Michael S Nelson; Yinghui Huang; Min Hui Lim; Diana L Simons; Ting-Fang He; John H Yim; Laura Kruper; Joanne Mortimer; Susan Yost; Weihua Guo; Christopher Ruel; Paul H Frankel; Yuan Yuan; Peter P Lee Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2019-10-03
Authors: Lisa I Greene; Tullia C Bruno; Jessica L Christenson; Angelo D'Alessandro; Rachel Culp-Hill; Kathleen Torkko; Virginia F Borges; Jill E Slansky; Jennifer K Richer Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 5.852